LSJR on oil consumption

[lawrencerd]

Yes I understand that some people get triggered when asked to explain what they themselves post.

Others in the same thread apparently.

I just think there's a lot more straightforward ways to address something that you find inaccurate than pithy leading questions trying to "catch" someone in an inaccuracy.

 

[OVERKILL]

I know this happens

Not sure if LSJr addressed it directly but my theory is more oil can escape into the combustion chamber because unclean oil keeps the rings from making an ideal seal.

I would think that, given the variability, it's more likely reduced volatility resistance, since I've run some pretty long intervals in our 1500, as has @wwillson , and I know Wayne wasn't using anything uber exotic for oil filtration (while I'm using OG Ultra's, so I can't make that argument for my application). I've never had to add oil on the RAM or the Jeep, no matter how far I push that interval. But, these are both applications that don't meaningfully fuel dilute because they are port injected.

On the other hand, we often see with DI engines, that there's that threshold where, once crossed, all of a sudden there's consumption.

So, if I had to guess, I'd think it was more to do with fuel contamination than just dirty oil.

 

[OVERKILL]

Well, yes, but not in the way you mean. I'm sure there are people claiming that they've reduced oil consumption by going from a euro oil to 5w30 Valvoline Restore and Protect, which is thinner but also a totally different product. It would be pretty difficult to control this test, since most brands will have formula variations between their viscosity offerings. I'm sure the Valvoline Restore and Protect crowd will always attribute this to magic chemistry instead of fluid dynamics. Showing that a thinner oil improved oil consumption would be very difficult to do for a consumer.

I wasn't thinking of including products like Valvoline Restore and Protect, just basically, somebody has an engine that's consuming on the OE visc, they usually go up a grade or 2 to reduce that consumption, has anyone tried going the opposite direction? I'm sure we've got a few oil burners on this site, but I suspect their owners might be reluctant to run 0W-16 in them as a test, lol.

I'm sure that some of these issues are exacerbated with cold oil, especially short-trippers. Again, many other variables at play but the engines I've personally seem with "bad rings" are also rarely driven more than a few miles at a time.

Short trippers are more inclined to put fuel in the oil, which adds to the volatile compounds that produce coking, varnish and lacquer. There's also more ring/piston/liner wear during the warm-up regime, so if you spend your entire operating life in warm-up, you are going to have more wear, and more wear exasperates the issues with fuel dilution and deposits, so there's a feedback mechanism in play there.

Also important to remember that API testing does not require perfectly clean rings, just acceptably clean ones, per the standard. And that the super thin grades are exempt from some of the testing.

 

[OVERKILL]

I just think there's a lot more straightforward ways to address something that you find inaccurate than pithy leading questions trying to "catch" someone in an inaccuracy.

I appreciate that @kschachn might get under the skin of some people with the tone of some of his replies, but in this instance he literally just asked "such as what?":

Such as what?

That's pretty bloody straight-forward, no?

There may be times where I get why some people get rubbed the wrong way from his engagement style, but this, to me, isn't one of those situations and you seem unreasonably triggered by this engagement, one that you were not involved in, but instead opted to inject yourself into and get offended over.

Pick your battles. Do you not think there might have been a more suitable example to have it out over? Because to me, this seems like a poor choice

 

[lawrencerd]

I appreciate that @kschachn might get under the skin of some people with the tone of some of his replies, but in this instance he literally just asked "such as what?":

That's pretty bloody straight-forward, no?

There may be times where I get why some people get rubbed the wrong way from his engagement style, but this, to me, isn't one of those situations and you seem unreasonably triggered by this engagement, one that you were not involved in, but instead opted to inject yourself into and get offended over.

Pick your battles. Do you not think there might have been a more suitable example to have it out over? Because to me, this seems like a poor choice

It's just a trend I've noticed, to the point where I've actually muted the user despite the fact I believe they have expertise and I could learn something, because I just find it rude.

Occasionally I'll get curious due to inclusion in a quote or reply and reveal the post.

It's not straightforward at all imo. If you believe there is some kind of inaccuracy why not state that or provide further information/rebuttal.

Instead they ask snide leading questions that clearly imply a disagreement without stating any position that can be discussed further.

 

[OVERKILL]

It's just a trend I've noticed, to the point where I've actually muted the user despite the fact I believe they have expertise and I could learn something, because I just find it rude.

Occasionally I'll get curious due to inclusion in a quote or reply and reveal the post.

It's not straightforward at all imo. If you believe there is some kind of inaccuracy why not state that or provide further information/rebuttal.

Instead they ask snide leading questions that clearly imply a disagreement without stating any position that can be discussed further.

I think you are off base on this one, he literally just asked "such as what?", that's not leading, it's asking for some examples of what was said. There are times when I know he's being snarky, but I think you are being hyper-sensitive here and subsequently punching at ghosts in this instance.

That said, given what you've said, I do agree that having him muted is probably best for you.

 

[buster]

I would think that, given the variability, it's more likely reduced volatility resistance, since I've run some pretty long intervals in our 1500, as has @wwillson , and I know Wayne wasn't using anything uber exotic for oil filtration (while I'm using OG Ultra's, so I can't make that argument for my application). I've never had to add oil on the RAM or the Jeep, no matter how far I push that interval. But, these are both applications that don't meaningfully fuel dilute because they are port injected.

On the other hand, we often see with DI engines, that there's that threshold where, once crossed, all of a sudden there's consumption.

So, if I had to guess, I'd think it was more to do with fuel contamination than just dirty oil.

GDI has a lot to do with I think too.

 

[OVERKILL]

GDI has a lot to do with I think too.

Yup, that fuel blast I think does, that's why we see so much more fuel dilution with (most) DI engines.

 

[fantastic]

Shell did a study years ago that demonstrated oil film thickness around the top of the rings was higher with a 20 grade than a 30 grade. Not sure how applicable it is in today's engines.

"Shell Research:
Quote:
The assumption that lower viscosity lubricants automatically give rise to thinner oil films in
key lubricated contacts in a gasoline engine is also open to question, particularly in the case
of piston rings. Laser Induced Fluorescence measurements have found that, in a Nissan
gasoline engine, the mid-stroke top ring oil film thickness was greater for an SAE-5W/20
lubricant than it was for an SAE-15W/40 lubricant. These effects were also observed in our
laboratory for monograde lubricants. Similar effects have been observed by S.L. Moore of
BP36. Figure 20 illustrates the observations. A qualitative explanation of such an effect
could be as follows : There are two routes by which lubricant reaches the top piston ring.
Route #1 (the “conventional” route) is that oil is left on the liner by the passage of the
preceding ring. The higher the oil viscosity, the larger will be the oil film thickness left on
the liner. Route #2 involves oil being transported to the top piston ring via the ring gaps
(such flows have been observed by Nakashima et al37), and this is thought to favour lower
viscosity lubricants. The precise balance between oil transported by the two routes will
determine whether the oil film thickness under the top ring is greater for a lower viscosity
oil or not."
Source:
Improved Fuel Efficiency by Lubricant Design : A Review R.I. Taylor & R.C. Coy Shell Research & Technology Centre, Thornton, P.O. Box 1, Chester, CH1 3SH, UK

Route #2: I understand how an oil can potentially get through the ring gaps but I'm trying to figure out if their statement is saying lower viscosity fluids would be more prone to go that route?

https://www.enginebuildermag.com/20...s-inside-viscosity-base-stocks-and-additives/

“Piston rings ride on a thin hydrodynamic oil film that keeps them from contacting the cylinder wall,” says Matthew Bupp of PennGrade. “Without it, the two surfaces could seize, leading to scuffing or ring failure.”

The challenge comes at ring reversal, when the piston changes direction and the oil wave collapses.

“At that point, the film momentarily breaks down,” says Len Groom of AMSOIL. “The ring shifts slightly, and it takes a fraction of a second for that film to rebuild. That’s why you see a wear ridge at the top of the cylinder. In that instant, zinc and phosphorus activate under heat and pressure, creating a sacrificial layer of protection. Now, a synthetic base oil is going to handle that better than a conventional. The natural shear stability, the natural film strength of a synthetic will help during that area of ring reversal.”

Seen cylinders wider circumference at the top & chalked it up to the combustion process wearing that area out but didn't know how the oil was behaving during that process. That is super cool information! Thanks

 

[TiGeo]

This also underscores the problem of quoting bits from a video, that we don't have a summary of, where the content we are expected to engage on, isn't provided for those of us who don't want to watch a video, since the main medium we engage in on this forum is text. This is also why the board rule exists to provide a reasonable summary of any video posted, so people that don't want to watch it, don't have to, while still being able to engage on the content.

Nobody expects you to participate. Plenty of non-video content here to engage with if watching a short video is too much for you.

 

[OVERKILL]

Nobody expects you to participate. Plenty of non-video content here to engage with if watching a short video is too much for you.

I like to participate, but I don't like watching youtube videos. The site rules effectively cater to this by requiring meaningful descriptions of videos to accompany them when they are posted.

It has nothing to do with a video being "too much for me", Jesus Christ dude, where the hell did that come from?

 

[4wd]

I like to participate, but I don't like watching youtube videos. The site rules effectively cater to this by requiring meaningful descriptions of videos to accompany them when they are posted.

It has nothing to do with a video being "too much for me", Jesus Christ dude, where the hell did that come from?

It’s his sedimentary lifestyle - too much overburden can weigh on a guy

 

[OilStainedNapkin]

W-2 oil….aka they are paying him for using the oil as their employee